HAROLD CHARLES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's motion because the attached immigration documents sufficiently demonstrated he was threatened with deportation.
[1] A trial court must inform a defendant who is not a United States citizen that a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may subject them to deportation.
[2] To obtain postconviction relief for a violation of the rule requiring advisement of deportation consequences, a defendant must establish they did not know of the potentia…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a non-citizen, pleaded nolo contendere to lewd battery and was not advised of potential deportation. He filed a motion alleging his plea wa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deportation Consequences Of Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion wherein he alleges that his plea of nolo contendere to two counts of lewd or lascivious battery was involuntary because he was not advised that he could be subject to deportation as a consequence of his plea. The trial court found that Appellant failed to show he was actually threatened with deportation and summarily denied the motion. We disagree.
Appellant is not a United States citizen. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) requires a trial judge to inform a defendant that if he pleads guilty or nolo contendere and is not a United States citizen, the plea may subject him to deportation. To obtain postconviction relief based on a rule 3.172(c)(8) violation, the defendant must establish that: (1) he did not know the plea might result in deportation; (2) he is “threatened” with deportation because of the plea; and (3) had he known of the possible consequence, he would not have entered the plea. See Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2000); Payne v. State, 890 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Appellant alleged all three elements in his motion. Appellant attached two documents to his motion. The first document was a notice from the Immigration and Naturalization Service that Appellant was subject to deportation based, in part, on being convicted of acts constituting a crime involving moral turpitude. The second was an order from an immigration judge denying Appellant’s requests for asylum and for withholding of deportation.
Based on the documents attached to the motion, the trial court’s finding that Appellant failed to show he was actually threatened with deportation is not supported by the record. As Appellant’s motion is otherwise facially sufficient, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion. Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)
- Rayon Payne v. State, 890 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)